UI PERFORMS measures and minimum state performance criteria

Official full letter: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl99/uipl_3799.htm

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Washington, D. C. 20210
CLASSIFICATION: UI
CORRESPONDENCE SYMBOL: TEUPR
ISSUE DATE: July 31, 1999
RESCISSIONS: None
EXPIRATION DATE: July 31, 2000
DIRECTIVE: UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM LETTER NO. 37-99 TO: ALL STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES FROM: GRACE A. KILBANE, Director, Unemployment Insurance Service SUBJECT: UI PERFORMS Tier I and Tier II Performance Measures, and Minimum Performance Criteria for Tier I Measures

Purpose. To disseminate the performance measures that will be used to assess program operations and plans for program improvement, establish the minimum performance criteria for Tier I measures and their effective dates, and discuss the relationship of the Tier I and Tier II measures to the State Quality Service Plan (SQSP) process.

References. Unemployment Insurance Program Letter (UIPL) No. 41-95 (August 24, 1995), UIPL No. 19-98 (March 30, 1998), UIPL No. 34-98 (July 23, 1998), UIPL No. 4-99 (October 20, 1998), and Federal Register notice (FRN) 63 FR 63544 (November 13, 1998).

Background. The State-Federal Performance Enhancement Work Group (PEWG) established the outlines of the UI PERFORMS system for promoting continuous improvement in UI operational performance and identified performance measures for the performance management system. Ten of these measures were designated "Tier I" measures, for which uniform national criteria representing minimum levels of acceptable performance would be established.

UIPL No. 41-95 provided a detailed description of the UI PERFORMS system and solicited comments on the proposed system from State Employment Security Agency (SESA) administrators.

UIPL No. 41-95 included:

• A discussion of the principles of the State and Federal partnership, including the roles and responsibilities of each party.

• The identification of key performance measures, which were designated as either Tier I or Tier II measures.

  • Ten Tier I measures were identified. These measures represent core or critical areas of UI customer service for which uniform national criteria would be established. States would address their performance for the Tier I measures annually through the SQSP.
  • The Tier II measures were established for other important UI activities. States would report performance data on a regular basis to the Department of Labor; however, no performance criteria were established for Tier II measures. States would set performance targets for the Tier II measures in consultation with the Federal partner and plan for performance improvement through the SQSP process. The Tier II measures are listed in the Attachment.

• A general description of the continuous improvement, "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle, and a detailed discussion of the SQSP and the planning process, including the plan narrative, quantitative displays of performance data, and criteria to identify performance needing improvement.

• A discussion of Federal oversight, including technical assistance, financial assistance, rewarding State accomplishments, and actions to improve performance. This last activity includes the development of corrective action plans by States that fail to meet the minimum performance criteria, and conformity/compliance actions to address exceptional instances of continued failure to meet minimum levels of performance.

The PEWG's successor, the Performance Enhancement Group (PEG), ratified the performance criteria principles established by the PEWG. These principles were included in UIPL No. 4-99. PEG materials related to the establishment of performance criteria for the Tier I measures were provided in UIPL No. 19-98, and UIPL No. 34-98 described the process for establishing the performance criteria.

The PEG also deferred setting a criterion for one of the ten Tier I measures, cashiering timeliness, until a data collection methodology can be developed for that measure that can be applied uniformly by all States.

The PEG established three workgroups -- Appeals, Benefits, and Tax -- to develop recommendations for the criteria for the nine other Tier I measures. Each workgroup included Federal staff from the National and Regional Offices and representatives from at least two States. The PEG developed guidelines for the workgroups to follow in developing their recommendations.

The workgroups' reports were presented to the PEG at its meeting in Washington, DC, on September 28-30, 1998. The PEG reviewed the workgroups' recommendations, both in terms of the individual Tier I measures and in light of their cumulative burden, and recommended appropriate adjustments.

UIPL No. 4-99 disseminated the proposed criteria and solicited the comments of the SESA Administrators. The November 13, 1998 FRN disseminated the proposed criteria and provided a 60-day period for public comment on the proposed criteria.

A total of 26 States submitted comments in response to UIPL No. 4-99. Six States submitted comments in response to the November 13, 1998 FRN. However, the comments of three of these States were the same as the comments these States submitted in response to the UIPL. In addition to the States, two public interest groups submitted comments in response to the FRN.

Definitions, Criteria, and Effective Dates. Tier I criteria will be used to assess State performance beginning with the SQSP cycle shown in the following Tier I performance measure table. States which do not meet minimum performance criteria which become effective in fiscal year (FY) 2002 (or later) will be required to submit plans identifying the steps the State will take to achieve those criteria, and must demonstrate progress toward meeting them. However, the Department of Labor will not initiate formal action if State performance fails to meet a new criterion prior to its effective date, provided the Department of Labor has received and approved a satisfactory corrective action plan and evidence of continuing progress in its achievement.

State performance assessment is discussed in detail in the State Quality Service Plan Handbook (ET Handbook No. 336, 16th Edition).

Periodic Review and Affirmation or Revision. The Department of Labor is committed to reviewing performance measures and criteria periodically, as agreed to by the PEWG and affirmed by the PEG. Final determination of the criteria for the two current Secretary's Standards -- first payment timeliness and lower authority appeals timeliness-- will occur in conjunction with proposed UI PERFORMS rulemaking. The first periodic review of the full set of Tier I measures will occur not more than five years from the date of issuance, with the exception of the criteria for nonmonetary determinations timeliness, nonmonetary determinations quality, and new employer status determinations accuracy, which will be reviewed after two years. The reviews will include all State performance data for these measures available at the time of the review.

Action Required. SESA Administrators are requested to provide this information to appropriate staff.

Inquiries. Please refer inquiries to the appropriate Regional Office.

Attachment. UI PERFORMS Tier II measures.

Official Tier I table: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl99/uipl_3799table.pdf

EFFECTIVE DATE/
                     TIER I MEASURE                                      CRITERION
                                                                 FY         FY        FY
                                                                 2000       2002      2005
                                                                  SQSP       SQSP      SQSP
First Payment Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from week-ending date of the first
compensable week in benefit year to date payment is made in person, mailed, or offset or
intercept is applied on the claim.
Source: ETA 9050 report.
% of 1st Payments within 14/21 days: Intrastate UI, full weeks   87
% of 1st Payments within 35 days: Intrastate UI, full weeks      93
% of 1st Payments within 14/21 days: Interstate UI, full weeks   70
% of 1st Payments within 35 days: Interstate UI, full weeks      78
% of 1st Payments within 14/21 days: Intrastate + Interstate                90*       90*
UI, UCFE, UCX programs, full + partial/part-total weeks
% of 1st Payments within 35 days: Intrastate + Interstate UI,               95*       95*
UCFE, UCX programs, full + partial/part-total weeks
Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from date of detection
by the SESA of any nonmonetary issue which had the potential to affect the claimant's past,
present or future benefit rights to date of the determination. Source: ETA 9052 report.
% of separation determinations within 21 days of detection                  80        80
date:
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
% of nonseparation determinations within 14 days of detection               80        80
date:
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
Nonmonetary Determinations Quality: Evaluation results of quarterly samples of
nonmonetary determinations selected from the universe of nonmonetary determinations
reported on the ETA 9052 report, as instructed in ET Handbook No. 301 (revised January
1998). Source: ETA 9056 report.
% of separation and nonseparation determinations with quality               75        75
scores > 80 points: Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
Lower Authority Appeals Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from the date the request for
a lower authority appeals hearing is filed to date of the decision. Source: ETA 9054 report.
% of lower authority appeals decided within 30 days of filing:   60         60*       60*
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
% of lower authority appeals decided within 45 days of filing:   80         85*       85*
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX

% of lower authority appeals decided within 90 days of filing:              95*       95*
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
Higher Authority Appeals Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from the date a higher
authority appeal is filed to date of the decision. Source: ETA 9054 report.
% of higher authority appeals decided within 45 days of filing:   50        50        50
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
% of Higher authority appeals decided within 75 days of filing:   80        80        80
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
% of higher authority appeals decided within 150 days of          95        95        95
filing:
Intrastate + Interstate UI, UCFE, UCX
Lower Authority Appeals Quality: Evaluation results of quarterly samples of lower
authority benefit appeals hearings selected and evaluated as instructed in ET Handbook No.
382 (2nd Edition).
Source: ETA 9057 report.
% of lower authority appeals with quality scores equal to at      80        80        80
least 85% of the potential points: Intrastate + Interstate UI,
UCFE, UCX
New Employer Status Determinations Timeliness: Number of days elapsed from last day of
the quarter (Quarter Ending Date--QED) in which liability occurred to date of determination
(date that the status information was officially entered into the State's system). Source: ETA
581 report.
% of status determinations for newly established employers        60        60        60
made within 90 days of the QED
% of status determinations for newly established employers        80        80        80
made within 180 days of the QED
New Employer Status Determinations Accuracy: Accuracy of status determinations based
on the application of a review instrument for an annual acceptance sample selected from a
universe of all status determinations for new and reactivated employers made during one
complete calendar year, as instructed in ET Handbook No. 407 (revised December 1998).
This measure includes only the accuracy of the determination, not the posting.
Pass new employer status determinations accuracy acceptance                 Pass      Pass
sample: No more than 6 failed cases in a sample of 60
Timeliness of Transfer from Clearing Account to Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF):
Average number of days funds are on deposit in the State          <=2
clearing account before transfer to the State account in the      days
UTF, estimated from total deposits to the clearing account and
total daily ledger balance reported on the ETA 8414 report.
Ratio of average daily loanable balance in clearing account to              <=1.75    <=1.0

average daily transfer to UTF: Ratio of the monthly average
daily loanable balance (line 10, ETA 8414 report) to the
average daily transfer to the Trust Fund (line 3, ETA 8405
report, divided by the number of days in the month).
Timeliness of Deposit to the Clearing Account: Elapsed time from the State's receipt of
employer contributions to their deposit in the clearing account, estimated from a random
sample of contributions received by the State during a specified time interval.
Criterion deferred until uniform measurement methodology is
developed.

Official Tier II attachment: https://oui.doleta.gov/dmstree/uipl/uipl99/uipl_3799a.htm

UIPL 37-99 Attachment

UI PERFORMS Tier II Measures

Benefits Payment Timeliness Measures

Intrastate UI First Payments Timeliness^(*)

Interstate UI First Payments Timeliness^(*)

UI First Payments Timeliness (Partials/Part Totals)

UCFE First Payments Timeliness

UCX First Payments Timeliness

Continued Weeks Payments Timeliness^(*)

Continued Weeks Payments Timeliness (Partials/Part Totals)

Workshare First Payments Timeliness

Workshare Continued Weeks Payment Timeliness

^(*) Includes Total and Partials/Part-Total payments.

Nonmonetary Determinations Timeliness Measures

Intrastate Separation Determinations Timeliness

Intrastate Nonseparation Determinations Timeliness

Interstate Separation Determinations Timeliness

Interstate Nonseparation Determinations Timeliness

Nonmonetary Issue Detection Timeliness

Nonmonetary Determinations Implementation Timeliness

Appeals Timeliness Measures

Implementation of Appeals Decision Timeliness

Employer Tax Appeal Timeliness [to be developed]

Lower Authority Appeals, Case Aging

Higher Authority Appeals, Case Aging

Combined Wage Claims Timeliness Measures

Combined Wage Claim Wage Transfer Timeliness

Combined Wage Claim Billing Timeliness

Combined Wage Claim ReimbursementsTimeliness

Tax Timeliness Measures

Contributory Employer Report Filing Timeliness

Reimbursing Employer Report Filing Timeliness

Securing Delinquent Contributory Reports Timeliness

Securing Delinquent Reimbursing Reports Timeliness

Resolving Delinquent Contributory Reports Timeliness

Resolving Delinquent Reimbursing Reports Timeliness

Contributory Employer Payments Timeliness

Reimbursing Employer Payments Timeliness

Successor Status Determination Timeliness (within 90 days of Quarter End Date)

Successor Status Determination Timeliness (within 180 days of Quarter End Date)

Appeals Quality Measures

Lower Authority Appeals Due Process Quality

Higher Authority Appeals Quality - [to be developed]

Tax Quality Measures

Employer Tax Appeals Quality - [to be developed]

Delinquent Reports Resolution Quality

Collection Actions Quality

Turnover of Contributory Receivables to Tax Due

Turnover of Reimbursing Receivables to Tax Due

Writeoff of Contributory Receivables to Tax Due

Writeoff of Reimbursing Receivables to Tax Due

Contributory Accounts Receivable as a Proportion of Tax Due

Reimbursing Accounts Receivable as a Proportion of Tax Due

Field Audits Quality

Field Audit Penetration, Employers

Field Audit Penetration, Wages

Percent Change as a Result of Field Audit

Benefits Accuracy Measures

Paid Claim Accuracy

Denied Claim Accuracy [under development]

Tax Accuracy Measures

Posting New Determinations Accuracy

Successor Determinations Accuracy

Posting Successor Determinations Accuracy

Inactivating Employer Accounts Accuracy

Posting Inactivations Accuracy

Employer Reports Processing Accuracy

Contributory Employer Debits/Billings Accuracy

Reimbursing Employer Debits/Billings Accuracy

Employer Credits/Refunds Accuracy

Benefit Charging Accuracy

Experience Rating Accuracy

Benefit Payment Control Measures

Benefit Payment Control, Establishment Effectiveness [under development]

Benefit Payment Control, Collection Effectiveness [under development]